Pathways to the future

Cycleways. Can't live with them, can't live without them, writes Philip Gomes.

What to do about cycling infrastructure? I mean that in a good way of course, cycleways and bikeways are the future of large cities around the world so we'd better get used to them Down Under.

I started thinking about this again with the announcement by the Sydney Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, that the finishing touches to a separated two-lane cycleway that takes riders from the Harbour Bridge down Kent Street into the CBD and on to the Inner West, had been applied.

It's not about the why but the how and the when.

When of course is now. Its happened at an incredible pace in Melbourne, and Sydney is accelerating hard in an attempt to catch up.

The how is a different story and I think we're still finding our way. You can't plonk any old piece of cycling specific infrastructure down anywhere and expect it to be a success. You have to pick your spots and hopefully get it right.

Sydney can be a difficult customer when it comes to cycling but I think the Lord Mayor and cycling advocates are getting it right in picking their spots. The Bridge to Bridge connection is one of those.

The consensus is that cycleways are a good thing because they ameliorate the fear so many have of cycling on roads dominated by vehicles.

And given the European experience we know this is true, build it and they will come.

Still, if I correctly have my fingers on the pulse of some of the thinking out there, worries do persist about a particular consequence of an increasing network of cycleways.

The argument usually boils down to competing interests, those of commuters and the needs of the training cyclist - with a side order of motorist.

The fear among racing and training cyclists is that they will be increasingly pushed to the margins both physically and metaphorically as more cycling specific infrastructure is built out.

And the more specific cycling infrastructure we build, the more it will be expected all cyclists use it - though that infrastructure may not meet the needs of the training cyclist - or bunch.

Training properly, singly or in a bunch, means hitting the roads and mixing it with the heavy iron, and in a big cities like Sydney and Melbourne that means not using the available cycling infrastructure.

A well trained cyclists' ability to travel solo at speed is compromised if forced to use a cycling path. Where is the efficiency and convenience in that?

So I'd have to say that for the regular 'clubbie' mixing it with cars is preferable to fighting the stream of slow movers on a bike way, as they commute to work.

Of course the real problem isn't infrastructure or competing needs but the lack of understanding of those needs by motorists and the non-cycling community.

Unfortunately, to that segment of the travelling public all cyclists look alike, and public education about tribal differences is unlikely to change the situation much in the near future.

Other countries seem to manage, but will 'roadies' become collateral damage as we transition to a cycling environment that is broader and more representative of the wider community?

Hopefully no. The greater argument though is a compelling one, getting more people on bikes.

From a social and environmental point of view we have no choice but to accept cycling infrastructure into our cycling (and motoring) lives.